A sponsored child's PR application was refused because the officer determined the applicant was not a member of the family class. The child had claimed that they were 20 years old, but on the sponsor's own application 2 years ago, they had declared that their child was 26 years old. During the interview with their RCIC, the sponsor claims that they made a mistake on their own application regarding the age of their child. What should the RCIC request to best prove the applicant's age?

A DNA report is crucial in establishing biological relationships, particularly when inconsistencies exist in the claims made by the sponsor and the applicant. This type of evidence can conclusively prove whether the applicant is indeed the biological child of the sponsor, addressing the officer's concerns about family class eligibility.

A notarized affidavit from the applicant may provide a personal declaration of their relationship, but such statements can be subjective and do not serve as conclusive proof of biological ties. This choice would not adequately address the doubts raised by the officer regarding the applicant's true age and familial connection.

Similar to the applicant's affidavit, a notarized affidavit from the sponsor would only offer their assertion of the relationship. However, it does not provide objective evidence to counter the inconsistencies found in previous applications, leaving the officer's concerns unaddressed.